Wednesday, June 06, 2007

This actually makes a lot more sense ...

In terms of understanding Mark's views on the war in Iraq:
All I know is what I read from people who are closer to the events than I am. I know it's gotta be frustrating for the troops on the ground who are bravely doing countless good things for the Iraqi people in trying to kill bad guys, get the lights and the water on, fix the smashed infrastructure and all the rest. I consider the troops on the ground heroic and always have. But I remain dubious that this Administration has a clue about what it is doing. That dichotomy is always present in my thoughts when I'm trying to evaluate what's happening in Iraq.

In other words, his fundamental position on the situation in Iraq is influenced more by his opinion of the administration (which, as we know from previous comments, is heavily influenced by the torture debate) than by the actual reports from the front. While this is somewhat defensible, I would hold that Mark clearly has a lot of emotional baggage (either "hate" or "righteous anger" depending on whether you're talking to me or him) when it comes to the Bush administration that makes him more or less irrational on the subject.

I also think, at the end of the day, Mark either does not follow or does not process much of the information he receives out of Iraq. For instance, he writes "We recently discovered that people we were training and equipping were part of the insurgency," as though he missed the entirety of the Fallujah Brigade story or the death squad activities that dominated the news through much of 2006. As long as he continues to exist within this willful ignorance, news stories can come and go but his emotional baggage towards the administration is likely to remain constant.


Christopher said...

A sense of what's actually happening in Iraq could be acquired from reading a smattering of milblogs (by those who are actually on the ground) along with Iraqi bloggers, combined with the reporting of Michael Yon and Bill Roggio. . . . better than CNN, anyway.

Susan B. said...

I have often wondered why Shea doesn't spend more time reading the views of those who are actually serving via the milblogs. This is why I cannot take Shea seriously when he says he, "supports the troops" while he is continuously posts things that would demoralize them and doesn't seem to care that they actually believe in what they are doing and would like to finish the job properly.

Perhaps the reason why he apparently doesn't read the views of those who actually serve is because it doesn't fit his "blame Bush" template.

And I can't help but notice that many of his commenters are downright anti-military. Contempt for those who serve this country in the military angers me to no end.